Root Causes of Turmoil in the Middle East - Research Paper Example

?Root Causes of Turmoil in the Middle East Introduction The Middle East is the term given to that geographical area where three great continents converge – namely Asia, Africa and Europe. There is general disagreement, however, as to which countries are included in this region. Among countries traditionally referred to as Middle Eastern about which confusion exists, for instance, are Armenia, Azerbaijan, the former Russian republic of Georgia, and Cyprus (counted as European); Egypt and Sudan (African); and Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Asia) (Kort, 2008, p. 4). It is generally conceded, however, that the countries that comprise the Middle East include Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia (Middle East Information Network, 2010). From as far back as history records, the Middle East region has been beset by armed unrest and turmoil, of every possible kind – between the Arabs and Israelis on territory, between two or more Arab nations on borders, between Arab nations based on alliances in the Cold War, and even within Arab nations in the form of interracial or ethnic conflicts. More recently, civil social unrest against autocratic regimes, similar to those in eighteenth century Europe, ushered in a different type of turmoil that expressed the popular desire for democratic reforms. This study shall briefly discuss the principal causes of turmoil in the Middle East, namely: (1) the interests vested by the Western superpowers in the region; (2) the contest for territorial control and misspecification of boundaries, and (3) the clamour for democratic governance and the end of kleptocracy and autocracy. Interest of superpowers in trade access and oil reserves The geographical location of the Middle East played an important role in the origin and progress of turmoil in the region. The region is a tricontinental hub, and as such it provides trade access over land among countries located in the three continents. During the time of colonial expansion, it therefore meant a great deal to conquer this hub in order to control the flow of trade among the countries in the three continents. European powers at that time therefore engaged in a rivalry to establish their foothold in the Middle East. Even in contemporary times, its strategic location has sparked occasional military offensives, such as that mounted by Israel against Egypt when the latter denied access to Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal (Milton-Edwards & Hinchcliffe, 2008). Besides being the trade gateway to three continents, the region is also situated over the world’s largest oil reserves, representing roughly two-thirds of all the oil supply internationally. Over 60% of the proven oil reserves in the world is to be found in the Persian Gulf, for which stakes the world’s superpowers had played for. This has been the principal interest of the U.S. and the USSR in the region during the Cold War. Other factors such as the U.S.-Israeli alliance precipitated the USSR-Afghanistan tie-up in the post-World War II power alignment, which served to establish their bid for control of the region’s oil (Heini, 1970). One may argue that the world’s superpowers have interests around the globe at one time or another, but despite interventions from the major developed countries, this fact does not necessarily lead to the continuous state of turmoil or unrest that is evident in the Middle East. Thus while it is an important external cause, it is one that impacts most those countries that are weak or unstable. Contestation of territorial control and illogical boundaries Many point to the Israeli-Arab war as a religious war; in truth, it is more a territorial war. The seeds of conflict were sown in 1947, when Britain withdrew from Palestine and a U.N. resolution called for the partition of Palestine into two, a Jewish state and an Arab state. Resistance to this partition erupted into hostilities between Zionists and Arab Palestinians. Israel won and thereafter declared an independent Israeli state. This prompted the other Arab nations to declare war on Israel, during which encounter the latter even ended up seizing a territory larger than that originally specified by the U.N., with the annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that resulted in the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians (Yaqub, 2006:13). Through the years, this dispute has led to the continuing animosity between the Israelis and Palestinians. What then appeared as a divide between religions is actually a challenge by the Arab occupants.against Israel’s legitimacy over the territory it occupies. The same fight for territorial control underlies quarrels between Arab neighbors, and internally between ethnic groups. When the European colonial masters designated the boundaries between states, the borders were determined on the basis of the interests of these Western powers on particular territories, and paid little regard to ethnicity, religion, or the existence of physical territorial markers (Von Hippel, 2002). Because the borders were set that cut across and separated pockets of social groupings, there resulted significant numbers of Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis, and became minorities in the countries the set boundaries relegated them to. The most significant of these groups is the Kurds, who, because of their sheer numbers (roughly 40 million), should have been assigned its own independent Kurdish state. Instead, they are victims of oppressive treatment because they comprise the minority in many states less numerous than them (Peters, 2011). The lack of logical basis for the setting of boundaries reduced their legitimacy and tended to justify, at least in the view of other states with particular interests, the extension of boundaries to the detriment of neighboring states. There is less stability in borders when adjoining states believe they have an arguable right to annex a portion thereof based on ethnic, racial or religious affiliation, historical entitlement, or other similar claim. The poor assignment of borders by the European colonial masters contributed to the lack of perceived legitimacy of the state boundaries, thereby providing a motivation for border disputes and military incursions. Oppressive regimes and a culture of violence Authors point out that poverty, poor education and a low literacy rate, lack of communications, and other social ills are factors that contributed to the frailty of democracy and the rise of dictatorial regimes in the Middle East (Arnold, 1985, p. 55). While such factors are certainly contributory, they are not the root causes of the weak political structures in the region. One cannot discount that powerful manipulations by the Cold War superpowers and their interest in the oil-rich region prompted the installation and support of dictatorial regimes which were sympathetic to the interest of the supporting superpower (Heini, 1970). That these autocracies lasted for so long under dictatorial leaders without serious challenges to their authority is attributed to logistical and military backing coming from whichever superpower supported it. Arguably, there are other factors. Strong totalitarian and charismatic leaders viewed with the mandate of religious authority have been known to use this to their advantage and advocated resort to terrorist activities in the guise of religious war. Several authors articulated the observation that terrorism would tend to be less prevalent in democracies where people are able to air their grievances and find compromise to disagreements without resort to violence or coercion (Windsor, 2003). However, this is far from conclusive, as new empirical studies suggest terrorist acts to occur more often in the more liberal political systems in the Middle East. The studies, however, define democratic processes and liberal systems patterned after the West even tends to attract more terrorist activities than dictatorial regimes (Piazza, 2007). In order to reconcile these seemingly contradictory findings, it would be necessary to establish the meaning of “democratic systems and processes” that is not tailored to Western-style democracy, but which have the elements of liberty and sovereignty residing in the people that is meaningful to the particular cultures in the Middle East. This debate is far from over. The recent popular unrests in the region point to the fact that political systems notwithstanding, the people are clamouring for social and political reforms that would allow them greater participation in the formulation of laws and policies., and the dismantling of the dictatorial regimes long-established to protect the interests of the developed nations and the ruling families and small circle of friends (Singh, 2011; Commonweal, 2011). There is a difference seen between the presently unfolding social unrest, and the turmoil of the past. The present public uprising is transforming the relationship of the Middle East with the West and the rest of the world, according to Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at New York’s Columbia University, from a position of “humiliation and frustration” to one of dignity, where the popularly supported governments truly act according to the will of the people (America, 2011, p. 7). Conclusion This discussion set out to determine the root causes of turmoil in the Middle East. There are factors that are readily apparent, such as border disputes, anti-Semitism, existence of terrorist groups, lack of education among the populace, poverty despite its lucrative oil exports, and failure of communications. On a higher level, causality can be traced to the colonial history of the countries in the region in terms of the erroneously designated boundaries, intervention by the world’s superpowers to protect their interests in the region’s strategic location for trade and oil, and the growing internal political clamor for social and political reforms. Taking the general perspective, it is apparent that while these problems also exist for other countries in the world, the frequent recurrence and severity of turbulent events is markedly greater for this region. These point to weaknesses in the internal national social structures and institutions that critically provide support the political and economic framework. Countries where state, social and political foundations are strong will capably repel attempts at foreign interventions. For this region, the erroneously designated boundaries compromised the nation-building process for lack of cultural and ethnic-racial bonds. Further is the destabilizing presence of Western powers, particularly during the Cold War, which aided in keeping the region dis-integrated to serve their interests. The resulting dictatorships plundered their territories for decades with the blessing of the superpowers. The people’s desire to throw off the decades-old dictatorships led to the present popular uprisings to establish self-governance. If there were one single root cause of the turmoil in the Middle East, it is the interrupted course of nation building which would have strengthened these nations. All the intermediate causes identified lead to the lack of strong and integrated nations, with political, economic and industrial systems. Lacking the stability of fully developed nations, the myriad problems that face all new states, and this region in particular due to the oil reserves, shall continue to threaten any opportunity for regional peace. References Arnold, A. (1985) Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Perspective. Stanford University: Hoover Press Publications Heini Jr., Robert Debs. Turmoil. Vital Speeches of the Day, 3/1/70, Vol. 36 Issue 10, p296 Kort, M G (2008) The Handbook of the Middle East, Revised Edition. North Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publishing Group, Inc. Middle East Information Network, (2010). Accessed 27 May 2011 from http://www.mideastinfo.com/countries.html Milton-Edwards, B & Hinchliffe, P. (2008) Conflicts in the Middle East Since 1945. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge Peters, R (2011) “Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look.” Armed Forces Journal. Piazza, J A (2007) “Draining the Swamp: Democracy Promotion, State Failure, and Terrorism in 19 Middle Eastern Countries” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 30, pp. 521-539 Singh, M. (2011) “Change In the Middle East.” Harvard International Review, Spring, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p19-21 “The Arab World Engulfed In Turmoil and Hope.” America, 2/7/2011, Vol. 204 Issue 3, p6-7 “Turmoil in the Middle East.” Commonweal, (3/25/2011), Vol. 138 Issue 6, p5 Von Hippel, K. (2002) “The Roots of Terrorism: Probing the Myth.” The Political Quarterly, pp. 24-39. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Windsor, Jennifer L. (2003) “Promoting democratization can combat terrorism” Washington Quarterly vol. 26, pp. 43–58. Yaqub, S. (2006, May) “The United States and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947 to the Present,” OAH Magazine of History, vol. 20, issue 3, pp. 13-17 Read More